Talk:Hubble's law

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hubble's law article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 2 months

Hubble's law was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 22, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 5, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Astronomy: Cosmology Top‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Cosmology task force.

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, Hubble's law → Hubble–Lemaître law, Not moved, 1 November 2018, discussion
RM, Hubble's law → Hubble–Lemaître law, Not moved, 1 January 2023, discussion

A summary of this article appears in Big Bang.

Reorg of "Determining the Hubble constant"

I am going to boldly reorg the section "Determining the Hubble constant" to correct the chronological order and move the conclusions to the end in the Hubble Tension subsection. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made some progress.

The Early Measurement section needs a work and bit more content.
The 21st Century section has two big problems: too much content and more important the emerging story of this era -- CMB vs local universe -- is obscured by the presentation.
The Hubble Tension section seems too long.

Johnjbarton (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I did more digital scissor work and resectioned. I split the Hubble tension section into a chronological piece and a status piece.

Precision cosmology and the Hubble tension
- The era 2000-2013
Eliminating systematic errors
- 2013+ is work on systematic errors;
Other kinds of measurements
- Post 2013 measurements other than CMB/distance ladder.
Possible resolutions of the Hubble tension
- experimental or theory paths

This organization makes the tension stand out and classifies the new work as systematic errors or "other kinds".

I think this is pretty good organizationally, but the content of the sections still needs work. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just another update in case I run out of energy on this topic. I added compact summaries of the early and late approaches to determining H_0 based mostly on the excellent Supplement to Verde's review. I was tempted to rework "Possible resolutions" because to me it fails to capture how unlikely it is that the existing proposals will pan out. But I think it's good enough.

The main issue then is the "Other kinds of measurements": it is newsy rather than encyclopedic. The section should also make clear that some of these approaches are "early" (use Lambda_CDM) and some are not.

To be sure I am not an expert on this topic so please review the entire section. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redshift of light as it goes (with no expansion) as an alternative explanation of the Hubble effect.

Suppose red shifting as it goes is just one of those things that light (EM waves) does. How much per km would that be, and how well could me measure that here on earth, or maybe to the moon and back. 2600:6C4E:3000:3232:9CF3:D7CC:2BB0:3A6C (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See tired light — this hypothesis is generally considered refuted by the evidence. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another new result

Is this paper:

Pascale, Massimo; Frye, Brenda L.; Pierel, Justin D.R.; Chen, Wenlei; Kelly, Patrick L.; Cohen, Seth H.; Windhorst, Rogier A.; Riess, Adam G.; Kamieneski, Patrick S.; Diego, Jos’e M.; Meena, Ashish K.; Cha, Sangjun; Oguri, Masamune; Zitrin, Adi; Jee, M. James (2025-01-14). "SN H0pe: The First Measurement of H₀ from a Multiply Imaged Type Ia Supernova, Discovered by JWST". The Astrophysical Journal. 979 (1): 13. arXiv:2403.18902. Bibcode:2025ApJ...979...13P. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9928. ISSN 0004-637X.

significantly different from the Riess vs Freeman discussion above? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabed Please see the discussion above under the topic "JWST update", specifically

In general a newly published peer-reviewed primary publication is not acceptable by default.

The issue here is that peer review takes time and luck. Wikipedia is not a news source and there is no goal to be "first". Johnjbarton (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabed I am asking you to undo your revert until we have consensus on this addition. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do whatever you want. Dabed (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vague / Confusing Statement

In the section titled "Matter- and dark energy-dominated universe", the statement:

"Other ingredients have been formulated."

Seem very vague to me. I do not understand what this means or why it should be relevant to this section. I assume there is some purpose to it - perhaps someone with a more in depth knowledge of this topic than me could describe what "ingredients" means, and perhaps include what these other ingredients are?

At the very least what is meant by ingredients should be stated clearly as the term is not found anywhere else in this article. BennBluee (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I deleted that line. The sources were about a viscous fluid model for QCD phase transitions, completely off topic for this section. Obviously the content was not useful so I did not move it. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]